Is it time for a serious conversation about Gun Control?

[TigerNBham 3]

Some more stats on murder rates

In 2011 the U.S. per capita murder rate was 4.2 per 100,000.

For comparison, the following countries had higher murder rates (trying to list only civilized nations here):

The Bahamas 27.4 (wow)

North Korea (communist dictatorship) was 15.2.

South Africa 31.8

Brazil 21.0

Greenland 19.2 (wow, this shocked me)

Georgia was 4.3

Moldova was 7.5

Russia 10.2

Ukraine 5.2

Estonia 5.2

Lithuania 6.6

Mongolia 8.7

1st world countries with a lower murder rate:

Canada 1.6

Japan 0.2

Great Britain: 1.2

Sweden: 1.0

Iceland 0.3

Norway 0.6

Germany 0.8

Denmark 0.9

Finland 2.2

Italy 0.9

Portugal 1.2

Spain 0.8

Austria 0.6

France 1.1

Belgium 1.7

Netherlands 1.1

Switzerland 0.7

Poland 1.1

Australia 1.0

Greece 1.5

And the grand prize for friendly nations -- Monaco. They had ZERO murders in 2011 (but they only have 36,000 people).

Just to point out since Switzerland is on that list every male between the age of 18-49 is issued with an Sturmgewher 90 assault rifle and a semiautomatic handgun which they keep at home in case of invasion.

After they have gone through military training, which happens to be compulsory.

Reminds me of that preamble to the second amendment: " A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,...

We seem to ignore that part.

S'land is a great model but we do not fit it. We are not as mature of a country.

They have a small and homogenous population, we have a multi ethnic one of which too many citizens are without c common education and cultural uniting standards Also,the USA's population is too lazy, smug and selfcentered to embrace mandatroy national service.

Now that new collective Army would not like the responsibility, but it would be a screen for the Bat *hit crazies who would never make the cut.

Also, a lot of uneducated people would not make the cut for military service due to minimum education standards.

Coming up with an alternative service is a slippery slope I will not get on.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Some personal observations from a writer for The American Conservative:

Some random thoughts on gun violence, gun control, and the Newtown massacre…

In a comment thread below, one of my readers said that it makes sense to him that states with lax gun laws have higher rates of gun violence. That got me to thinking about my own state, Louisiana.

I live in rural Louisiana. I would say that most households in my parish have at least one gun, and many more than one. Poverty is common; gun violence is not. Forty miles away is inner-city Baton Rouge. Poverty is common — and so is gun violence. Something else is going on.

In 2010, the most recent year for which I could find crime statistics, Louisiana led the nation in murders and non-negligent homicides. But if you dig a little deeper, you find that the New Orleans murder rate dwarfs the rest of the state combined — though Baton Rouge is also one of the most violent cities of its size in the nation. What’s more, the Louisiana gun murders in 2010 were overwhelmingly committed with handguns. Ban “assault rifles” if you will, but you won’t make a dent in our murder rate.

The Baton Rouge Advocate reported earlier this year that while gun crime is spreading all over the city, it remains heavily concentrated among poor black people in the northern part of the city. The victims and the killers are both likely to be young black men. And Baton Rouge police say drugs are usually at the center of killings there.

According to 2011 FBI statistics, blacks were responsible for 37 percent all murders in the US — three times the percentage of African-Americans in the US population.

Unsurprisingly, young men, too, were disproportionately responsible for murders. And broken down by murder and victim, statistics show that in 2011, US murders are heavily a matter of white people killing white people, and black people killing black people.

So: if your state has lots of black people in it, you will have more killings overall, given that they are disproportionately represented among killers and victims. One in three Louisianians are black, versus 13 percent nationwide. If gun homicides are disproportionately concentrated among African-Americans, then states with proportionately larger African-American populations are going to register higher rates of gun homicides. Moreover, according to the 2010 Census, 60 percent of New Orleanians are black, and 33 percent white — the exact opposite of the black-white ratio in the rest of the state. The black-white ratio in Baton Rouge is comparable. You do the math.

So what does this have to do with last week’s shootings? Given the nature of the crime (slaughtering first graders in their classroom, I mean), and the blanket media coverage, it’s no wonder people are freaked out. The thing is, mass killings like Newtown’s are unspeakably horrible, but also extremely rare. Now, I would by no means say that we care more about the dead in Newtown because they are white. I think that would be untrue, and repulsive. What I would say, though, is that the grotesque nature of that particular crime blinds us to the fact that homicide in this country is heavily a thing to do with handguns (versus other types of firearms, and concentrated among African-American males under the age of 29. (See the victim stats, and the offender stats.)

Twenty-six people were murdered in Newtown last Friday. In 2011, around 24 Americans were murdered each and every day by gunshot. Perhaps we don’t feel these deaths as much, collectively, because we figure that most of them are what you expect from gangbangers and those involved in the inner-city drug trade. Frankly, if some crack-dealing thug gets shot to death by some other crack-dealing thug, I don’t care remotely as much as I care about a classroom of first-graders being blown away by a maniac, nor do I care remotely as much about the thugs as I do about innocent children in those poor neighborhoods being hit by thug crossfire.

But I wonder: maybe these deaths don’t matter as much to us because they are occurring within a politically powerless community, as opposed to within a prosperous suburb. If the sons of middle-class and upper-middle class white people were killing and being killed at the rate that the sons of poor black people are, how would the national discussion differ?

Another thing: nationwide in 2011, handguns were used in so many more gun deaths than other firearms you can barely compare them. We’re talking about seven times more deaths than all other firearms combined (note: 1,700 deaths were attributed to non-specific firearms, but it’s reasonable to assume the distribution among the categories will remain the same). Look at the stats. Once again, banning so-called assault weapons might or might not be the right thing to do — I don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other right now — but the idea that it’s going to make a meaningful dent in US gun deaths is simply not borne out by the FBI’s data.

Besides, less than one percent of US murders are part of so-called spree killings. These things are virtually impossible to predict. In 1996, a maniac shot up a primary school in Dunblane, Scotland, killing 16 children, one adult, and then himself. He did so with handguns; a shocked Britain banned handguns in response. In 2010, Derrick Bird, a UK taxi driver, went on a homicidal rampage in Cumbria, killing 12, injuring 11, and then committing suicide. His weapons? A rifle and a shotgun. Both were legally obtained, and registered.

A subsequent inquiry found that there was no way the government could have anticipated his act — the killer had no prior psychiatric history — or prevented it through existing gun control policy. I suppose they could have outlawed all private ownership of weapons, and attempted to confiscate all firearms in Great Britain. We have a Second Amendment in the US, and a far more robust gun culture than the UK does. That wouldn’t work here, at all.)

Anyway, Great Britain has some of the toughest gun control laws in the world, and yet, this berserker still managed to massacre a dozen people. Think about that.

And think about this: in 1992, a man who was almost certainly serial killer Derrick Todd Lee — who, as it turned out, lived in our neighborhood, and was a peeping tom who had been spotted peering into houses there, and even entering on occasion — stood on the other side of my sister’s door late one night, while her husband was away, pounding hard on it. She drove him away by yelling at him that she had a pistol and would use it if he came through that door. She wasn’t lying. She was armed and waiting for him. By the time police arrived, he was long gone. If she had not had a gun, and had not been able to say what she said and back it up with bullets, if it came to that, things could have gone very different for her that night.

[AcUmen 242]

Im not sure why this thing has bothered me like it has.

The media has successfully carried out its mission. It's like these commercials with the hurt animals asking for donations. Or the Jerry Lewis telethon showing you all of the handicapped children. St Jude's commercials with the sad suffering cancer kids. The visuals constantly on your tv, computer, newspaper with every "expert" in their studio blaming everything on this boogeyman thing called a gun that will sneak into your house at night and steal your children.

It is their goal to sensationalize this, scare you, and gain support for their little gun free utopia they think they can create.

It was a horrible act. It should bother you. It bothers me. I just place the blame where it belongs. Unlike the media furthering an ulterior motive:finally putting a dent in that darned second amendment.

Well said. These types of acts are not new. In 1927 a man in Michigan woke up, killed his wife, burned down his house, then went to a local school and killed 38 children (and several adults). He didn't even use a gun for most of the crime, but used explosives. It's still the worst school massacre in American history. There have been mass shootings every decade since.

I remember in the 70's and 80's it seemed like there was a new serial killer on the loose every month. And they were always in the media spotlight. Nowadays you hear nothing about them (even though I am sure there are still a few out there). My point is, it seems like these sorts of crimes have a lot to do with media exposure. Back then it was "trendy" for nutjobs to be serial killers whereas nowadays it is trendy to be a mass shooter (both get loads of media attention and these wackos understand that).

But the fact is it is safer on the streets in America today since anytime since the late 1960's. This is what the FBI's own crime statistics show.

[AUGradinTX 0]

I've come to the conclusion that most don't know what a civilian AR is, but because of the appearance of the gun, they are scared by it.

Explain it to us. What are practical uses/advantages of owning an assault rifle.

Ask SEAL team 6. I don't know.

Once again, an AR-15 isn't an assault rifle. Not sure how many times I need to say this...

[4AUsince62 10]

I've come to the conclusion that most don't know what a civilian AR is, but because of the appearance of the gun, they are scared by it.

Explain it to us. What are practical uses/advantages of owning an assault rifle.

Ask SEAL team 6. I don't know.

Once again, an AR-15 isn't an assault rifle. Not sure how many times I need to say this...

Joseph Goebbels would be so proud of you.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

I've come to the conclusion that most don't know what a civilian AR is, but because of the appearance of the gun, they are scared by it.

Explain it to us. What are practical uses/advantages of owning an assault rifle.

Ask SEAL team 6. I don't know.

Once again, an AR-15 isn't an assault rifle. Not sure how many times I need to say this...

Joseph Goebbels would be so proud of you.

Congrats. You lose the argument by default by virtue of Godwin's Law.

[AUGradinTX 0]

How many of you idiots thst are opposed to banning high capacity assault weapons actually own one?

Thanks for the insult. I notice that coming a lot from your side of the argument in this thread. I own several and plan on picking up a few more as well as some mags before next year.

you guys are funny. I know a guy who went out and purchased a bushmaster in 2008 after the election fearing gun ban. Of course, it never materialized. So he overpaid for his gun for that cool factor. The gun industry loves you guys.

Not really concerned about the cool factor. I'm looking for a new rig for 3 gun competitions.

Yeah you are.

You just don't think of it as the "cool" factor. Any red-blooded man who participates or wants to participates in most any sport does so in part for the "cool" factor. Especially if there is some danger involved. I speak from experience. Indulging your fantasy is fun ("cool"), especially if you get good at it.

So be honest with yourself. Self-awareness is a wonderful thing to have. But it does take time to develop.

This is ridiculous. You really believe that you know why other people choose to do things better than they do?

I played sports because I loved competition and hated to lose. It had nothing to do with the "cool factor." If you do things for the cool factor, it seems you don't really do things because you enjoy them, but rather so other people might think you are cool.

I think I have perhaps confused the issue with my use of "cool". I meant it literally - as a mental rush of enjoyment or a thrill, as in feeling "wow, that was really cool" after turning a hot lap on a sport bike (for example).

I didn't mean it as simply trying to impress others.

Sorry for the confusion.

You're speaking of adrenaline.

I think this whole conversation has gotten convoluted. The rifle used (AR-15) is not a military weapon, combat weapon, nor is it an assault weapon. It is a semi-automatic rifle most use for hunting. There are a lot of rifles like it that just don't hold as many rounds in the cartridge. As far as I'm concerned, what the weapon looks like has little to do with the issue, but is causing most of the hysteria. It's the capabilities of weapons that may need tweaking. With that said, to make this rifle just like any other used for hunting, take away the capability to hold 20 rounds in the clip. That's it.

The AR-15 was not designed as a hunting weapon. It is derived on a combat purposed design. And the .223 is a poor cartridge for deer.

It is the combat oriented design features that make it an example of guns that should require more control or restrictions. Simply outlawing high capacity magazines while continuing to proliferate the availability of these guns would be useless in addressing the problem (for obvious reasons).

I don't hunt deer, but I live in TX and know many people who use AR .223s for that purpose. They have box freezers full of deer meat, so it seems to work just fine.

Why are you so caught up on the appearance or the design. Those two factors have nothing to do with lethality. Have you ever shot one? What are these combat oriented design features that you are talking about and how do they make the weapon more lethal? I have fired one many times. It looks like an M4, it shoots like a hunting rifle. You can't ban one gun over another because it looks scarier.

First, I didn't say you couldn't kill a deer with a .223. I said it is a poor choice for a deer cartridge compared to other options.

Secondly, I have described what I consider to qualify as a combat-oriented weapon several times on this thread. I don't feel obligated to keep repeating myself for people who haven't bothered to read my previous comments. Go back and pull up one of my descriptions and challenge me if you wish.

Then don't. My question was a bit rhetorical anyway. The answer is the AR .223 looks scary. I mean, come on, you think it isn't even a good choice to kill deer compared to other rounds. Maybe we should stop talking about .223s and start talking about these more lethal weapons you have in mind...

And I never accused you of saying a deer couldn't be killed with a .223. Just pointing out that deer hunters use it. So, maybe all these hunters need your consultation on how to better do what they've been doing their whole lives? I dunno...

[FatherUppercut 48]

I've come to the conclusion that most don't know what a civilian AR is, but because of the appearance of the gun, they are scared by it.

Explain it to us. What are practical uses/advantages of owning an assault rifle.

Ask SEAL team 6. I don't know.

Once again, an AR-15 isn't an assault rifle. Not sure how many times I need to say this...

Joseph Goebbels would be so proud of you.

Congrats. You lose the argument by default by virtue of Godwin's Law.

So far, I'm content with rifle sports... not so much hog hunting and protection. MOST criminals will book it if you fire a shotgun into the air. It just seems unfair to hunt animals with semi auto rifles. At least they have a chance to get away if you have to take some time to reload. Isn't it easier to just buy a pack of bacon at the grocery store?

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Interesting take...though I'm at a loss to figure out what any of that has to do with you comparing someone to a Nazi.

[selias 2,398]

Expecting another AWB that won't expire, I just bought a Colt LE6920MP-B and a couple 30 round magazines

[AUGradinTX 0]

I've come to the conclusion that most don't know what a civilian AR is, but because of the appearance of the gun, they are scared by it.

Explain it to us. What are practical uses/advantages of owning an assault rifle.

Ask SEAL team 6. I don't know.

Once again, an AR-15 isn't an assault rifle. Not sure how many times I need to say this...

Joseph Goebbels would be so proud of you.

http://www.guncite.com/assausup.txt

Research is good.

[The Freak 2,528]

I've come to the conclusion that most don't know what a civilian AR is, but because of the appearance of the gun, they are scared by it.

Explain it to us. What are practical uses/advantages of owning an assault rifle.

Ask SEAL team 6. I don't know.

Once again, an AR-15 isn't an assault rifle. Not sure how many times I need to say this...

Joseph Goebbels would be so proud of you.

Congrats. You lose the argument by default by virtue of Godwin's Law.

So far, I'm content with rifle sports... not so much hog hunting and protection. MOST criminals will book it if you fire a shotgun into the air. It just seems unfair to hunt animals with semi auto rifles. At least they have a chance to get away if you have to take some time to reload. Isn't it easier to just buy a pack of bacon at the grocery store?

You are not always just "hunting" hogs for meat or sport. Many times they are destroying the land and are considered pests. For that, you have to get as many as you can while they are in range. A bolt gun isn't going to cut it.

[tgr4lfe 220]

why is ammonium nitrate no longer available to me? why is it that it is such a hassle to board an airplane? why do people who appear to be of middle eastern descent seem to be randomly pulled out of terminals and double searched for possible weapons? its because when tradegy strikes people with common sense react accordingly. will it stop all mass murders? no. but doing nothing just invites it. you folks who are against limiting the most destructive weapons are not gonna wake up and think differently all the sudden, i know that. but to those of us who can see that there is no need for high capacity assault rifles, you seem very stubborn. i have not seen any reasonable response as to why these weapons should be legal or available to us. if this kid had been more thoroughly trained that number of 26 would have one more digit in it and you folks think the weapons are not the problem? i bet less than 0.5% of the population own these anyway, so why are so many people against banning them?

There already are laws against assault style weapons. Those laws so stop people from getting their hands on them and using them. Even if there wasn't one already in the home, what's to say he wouldn't have gone out to find one somewhere or just used the Glock and Sig or just got a Remington 1187 semi-auto shotgun?

The "you's" in the below rant are not directed directly at alexava.

The Second Amendment gave us a right to have firearms, but those that will never and don't want one, want the government to step in an infringe on my right to want to purchase one. I would want one for the fun of going out to the range, for self protection, and the protection of my family, IF/WHEN something happens I want to be able to protect them, myself and our belongings. So many of the left, want to just keep on trampling on the Constitution. I think what this 20 year old maniac did was despicable and I know he will rot in hell, but having been in law enforcement and still in the public safety field at a major university, it is pretty much impossible to predict these things.

It's the mis-use of these weapons that is the problem. It's the people and society that have let morality break down to the point that someone would even think that this was what they should do b/c they have had a bad life or been picked on or what ever the excuse is, insert it here. Yes, I know bullying is bad, but how much worse is this? The gun was just laying around in the closet until the moron picked up and made the choice to use it to kill innocents. Blame society as things perpetually break down to where people think this way. The mentality of "I want to die, so I'm going to take out a bunch of other people with me." Are you kidding me?!? Just off yourself and leave everyone else alone, especially the children!!! Restricting gun laws is not going to solve it, illegal weapons will ALWAYS find there way into society, hell, our own government is doing it and getting LEOs killed by doing so!!!

People need to wake up and see that more government control is NOT the answer!! We don't need the government dictating EVERYTHING we do! If you feel this way, then grow up!!

So are you OK with WalMart selling hand grenades?

Where did I say anything about hand grenades??? It is not a firearm, an insidiary device. Geez what kind of stupid question is that??

[4AUsince62 10]

I've come to the conclusion that most don't know what a civilian AR is, but because of the appearance of the gun, they are scared by it.

Explain it to us. What are practical uses/advantages of owning an assault rifle.

Ask SEAL team 6. I don't know.

Once again, an AR-15 isn't an assault rifle. Not sure how many times I need to say this...

Joseph Goebbels would be so proud of you.

Congrats. You lose the argument by default by virtue of Godwin's Law.

Perhaps, if the quote in particular I was referring to was inappropriate.

And I thought you were conservative like me.

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/08/05/dont-be-scared-of-godwins-so-c

Interesting take...though I'm at a loss to figure out what any of that has to do with you comparing someone to a Nazi.

And I didn’t compare him to a Nazi any more than I’m comparing you to a leftist.

[AcUmen 242]

Expecting another AWB that won't expire, I just bought a Colt LE6920MP-B and a couple 30 round magazines

Nice. I wasn't sure what that model was so i went to a gun website and looked it up. Here's the message I got:

This item is currently backordered. We are accepting new orders with extended delivery times.

Obama has put more firearms in the hands of the public than anyone in recent memory. Gun sales went through the roof when he as first elected. And now after the CT shooting, everyone is buying up all the sem-auto rifles they can before the upcoming ban. I bet it's good to be a gun dealer right now.

[selias 2,398]

Expecting another AWB that won't expire, I just bought a Colt LE6920MP-B and a couple 30 round magazines

Nice. I wasn't sure what that model was so i went to a gun website and looked it up. Here's the message I got:

This item is currently backordered. We are accepting new orders with extended delivery times.

Obama has put more firearms in the hands of the public than anyone in recent memory. Gun sales went through the roof when he as first elected. And now after the CT shooting, everyone is buying up all the sem-auto rifles they can before the upcoming ban. I bet it's good to be a gun dealer right now.

Yeah, I'd been looking for awhile and I got this one at a good price (~$1200). Being a Colt, it's chambered for the 5.56 round but will fire the .223. Next up will be a MAK because I really like the 7.62 round as well.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

And I didn’t compare him to a Nazi any more than I’m comparing you to a leftist.

You just insinuated that the poster was either like Goebbels or that at least his views would be ones that Goebbels would be proud of. I'm not sure how that isn't making a Nazi comparison/analogy.

Also, I'm not quite sure how you came to the conclusion that I'm not a conservative simply because I objected to your Nazi analogy.

[4AUsince62 10]

And I didn’t compare him to a Nazi any more than I’m comparing you to a leftist.

You just insinuated that the poster was either like Goebbels or that at least his views would be ones that Goebbels would be proud of. I'm not sure how that isn't making a Nazi comparison/analogy.

Also, I'm not quite sure how you came to the conclusion that I'm not a conservative simply because I objected to your Nazi analogy.

I was referring to the quote, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” But it looks like I was mistaken, technically speaking an assault rifle has to have selective fire and, “The term assault rifle is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally "storm rifle", as in "to storm a position"). The name was coined by Adolf Hitler as a new name for the Maschinenpistole 43.” I invoke Godwin’s Law, I win by default.

[alexava 6,973]

How many of you idiots thst are opposed to banning high capacity assault weapons actually own one?

Thanks for the insult. I notice that coming a lot from your side of the argument in this thread. I own several and plan on picking up a few more as well as some mags before next year.

you guys are funny. I know a guy who went out and purchased a bushmaster in 2008 after the election fearing gun ban. Of course, it never materialized. So he overpaid for his gun for that cool factor. The gun industry loves you guys.

Not really concerned about the cool factor. I'm looking for a new rig for 3 gun competitions.

Yeah you are.

You just don't think of it as the "cool" factor. Any red-blooded man who participates or wants to participates in most any sport does so in part for the "cool" factor. Especially if there is some danger involved. I speak from experience. Indulging your fantasy is fun ("cool"), especially if you get good at it.

So be honest with yourself. Self-awareness is a wonderful thing to have. But it does take time to develop.

This is ridiculous. You really believe that you know why other people choose to do things better than they do?

I played sports because I loved competition and hated to lose. It had nothing to do with the "cool factor." If you do things for the cool factor, it seems you don't really do things because you enjoy them, but rather so other people might think you are cool.

I think I have perhaps confused the issue with my use of "cool". I meant it literally - as a mental rush of enjoyment or a thrill, as in feeling "wow, that was really cool" after turning a hot lap on a sport bike (for example).

I didn't mean it as simply trying to impress others.

Sorry for the confusion.

You're speaking of adrenaline.

I think this whole conversation has gotten convoluted. The rifle used (AR-15) is not a military weapon, combat weapon, nor is it an assault weapon. It is a semi-automatic rifle most use for hunting. There are a lot of rifles like it that just don't hold as many rounds in the cartridge. As far as I'm concerned, what the weapon looks like has little to do with the issue, but is causing most of the hysteria. It's the capabilities of weapons that may need tweaking. With that said, to make this rifle just like any other used for hunting, take away the capability to hold 20 rounds in the clip. That's it.

The AR-15 was not designed as a hunting weapon. It is derived on a combat purposed design. And the .223 is a poor cartridge for deer.

It is the combat oriented design features that make it an example of guns that should require more control or restrictions. Simply outlawing high capacity magazines while continuing to proliferate the availability of these guns would be useless in addressing the problem (for obvious reasons).

I don't hunt deer, but I live in TX and know many people who use AR .223s for that purpose. They have box freezers full of deer meat, so it seems to work just fine.

Why are you so caught up on the appearance or the design. Those two factors have nothing to do with lethality. Have you ever shot one? What are these combat oriented design features that you are talking about and how do they make the weapon more lethal? I have fired one many times. It looks like an M4, it shoots like a hunting rifle. You can't ban one gun over another because it looks scarier.

First, I didn't say you couldn't kill a deer with a .223. I said it is a poor choice for a deer cartridge compared to other options.

Secondly, I have described what I consider to qualify as a combat-oriented weapon several times on this thread. I don't feel obligated to keep repeating myself for people who haven't bothered to read my previous comments. Go back and pull up one of my descriptions and challenge me if you wish.

Then don't. My question was a bit rhetorical anyway. The answer is the AR .223 looks scary. I mean, come on, you think it isn't even a good choice to kill deer compared to other rounds. Maybe we should stop talking about .223s and start talking about these more lethal weapons you have in mind...

And I never accused you of saying a deer couldn't be killed with a .223. Just pointing out that deer hunters use it. So, maybe all these hunters need your consultation on how to better do what they've been doing their whole lives? I dunno...

the hunters i know and that is many do not prefer the .223 for deer, that is a fact. my brother has one and never uses it. there are much better choices to do the job. but as mentioned earlier it is great for hogs, and this is the one exception i see a use for high capacity clips. as a lot of people do eat hogs that is not the primary reason to hunt them. they are shot and left to decay especially the boars they are a nusience and have no value to the eco-system. some states dont require a license, close the season, or have bag limits. they encourage hunters to kill as many as possible and a game warden told me he has proposed the state furnish the ammo. in alabama you can bait, trap and hunt a night with a permit. although if you trap, you must kill the pig before you take them out of the trap.most of this is irrelevant to the argument at hand but this is something i have recently started getting into. i quit deer hunting years ago but these hogs have me intrigued.

[homersapien 11,428]

Your argument the entire time has been it is the gun, what it looks like, or its magazine capacity that is the problem not the fact the guy was messed up. Last I heard mental illness can present after 18 years of age and sometimes rather suddenly. Last I heard people with military training are still people and are capable of snapping like the soldier that killed all those civilians in afghanistan. Or Charles Whitman the former marine who sniped people from the tower at the university of texas in 1963. If you know a Walmart selling selective fire weapons please give the address as I am sure there is a reward for that with the ATF. It is the ultimate proliferation because unlike the USA where you have to purchase a semiautomatic military styled rifle thus limiting these weapons to people. The Swiss are issued and trained in the use of a rifle that is actually capable of full auto fire. They have access to these weapons during domestic disputes, when they are drunk/ high on drugs, and any number of other situations that could lead to violence without a high murder rate. You either still don't understand the difference between selective fire military issued weapons and semiautomatic military styled weapons or you ignore it to be obtuse.

No my argument has not been "it is the gun". My argument has been there is really no practical need for the number of high capacity military weapons in our society. They are not really suitable for hunting or even self-defense. They are specialized weapons meant to kill other people as efficiently and rapidly as possible in combat situations.

That is exactly why I keep bringing up other military weapons that are strictly controlled, such as automatics and hand grenades. I think the control of these weapons is perfectly analogous to weapons like the Bushmaster.

If you had been paying attention you would know that I have acknowledged that this is only one small sliver of the problem and may do little or nothing to address the problem. But the fact remains, this troubled kid had easy access to a Bushmaster simply because his mother (of all people) thought she had to have one.

And your harping on the details of selective fire weapons vs "pure" semi-automatics is a ridiculous red herring that has no meaningful significance. It's not that I don't understand the nuances between these technical distinctions, it's that I consider them irrelevant to my argument.

But if you want to flatter yourself with the presumption that you are just so much more knowledgeable that I am about firearms and that is the reason for my position, then indulge yourself. And the fact that I have explained this (several times) is proof that I am not trying to be "obtuse" about it.

[homersapien 11,428]

Some more stats on murder rates

In 2011 the U.S. per capita murder rate was 4.2 per 100,000.

For comparison, the following countries had higher murder rates (trying to list only civilized nations here):

The Bahamas 27.4 (wow)

North Korea (communist dictatorship) was 15.2.

South Africa 31.8

Brazil 21.0

Greenland 19.2 (wow, this shocked me)

Georgia was 4.3

Moldova was 7.5

Russia 10.2

Ukraine 5.2

Estonia 5.2

Lithuania 6.6

Mongolia 8.7

1st world countries with a lower murder rate:

Canada 1.6

Japan 0.2

Great Britain: 1.2

Sweden: 1.0

Iceland 0.3

Norway 0.6

Germany 0.8

Denmark 0.9

Finland 2.2

Italy 0.9

Portugal 1.2

Spain 0.8

Austria 0.6

France 1.1

Belgium 1.7

Netherlands 1.1

Switzerland 0.7

Poland 1.1

Australia 1.0

Greece 1.5

And the grand prize for friendly nations -- Monaco. They had ZERO murders in 2011 (but they only have 36,000 people).

Just to point out since Switzerland is on that list every male between the age of 18-49 is issued with an Sturmgewher 90 assault rifle and a semiautomatic handgun which they keep at home in case of invasion.

After they have gone through military training, which happens to be compulsory.

Reminds me of that preamble to the second amendment: " A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,...

We seem to ignore that part.

Then you obviously don't know the US code. It defines the milita as all males between the ages of 17-45. It also includes females enlisted in the national guard. However, all males between 17-45 are included in the milita irregardless of whether they are a member of the national guard or not.

Wow. I never realized that was in the Constitution. Maybe you really are a lot more knowledgeable than me. :-\

[homersapien 11,428]

Side note: It's ironic how most of the hippies yelling for tighter gun control to protect the poor children with their whole lives ahead of them have no problem with all of the babies being aborted.

Extremely well said. :bow:/>

Well said maybe, but totally irrelevant, if not downright wacko.

Bet you were one of the wackos that thought it was great that "life" might have been found on Mars aren't you. :laugh:/>

wtf?

I didn't think you were intelligent enough to see the correlation. Shocking.

Well I guess you were right. Care to explain it to me? Please?

Sorry, I apologize for the insult. That was wrong of me. What I meant with the life on Mars correlation, was that most atheist/liberal/scientists find it utterly amazing and the greatest possible scientific breakthrough ever that a "single cell organism" found on Mars would qualify as "life" to them, but a group of cells growing into a human being inside a mother is nothing but a useless clump of nothingness worthy of zero chance of life.

Well, assuming you're serious (and I am not sure you are) that's one of the most absurd things I have ever heard.

I was hoping the "rational:wacko" ratio would be better on an Auburn-related forum. Guess not.

[homersapien 11,428]

First, I didn't say you couldn't kill a deer with a .223. I said it is a poor choice for a deer cartridge compared to other options.

Secondly, I have described what I consider to qualify as a combat-oriented weapon several times on this thread. I don't feel obligated to keep repeating myself for people who haven't bothered to read my previous comments. Go back and pull up one of my descriptions and challenge me if you wish.

Then don't. My question was a bit rhetorical anyway. The answer is the AR .223 looks scary. I mean, come on, you think it isn't even a good choice to kill deer compared to other rounds. Maybe we should stop talking about .223s and start talking about these more lethal weapons you have in mind...

And I never accused you of saying a deer couldn't be killed with a .223. Just pointing out that deer hunters use it. So, maybe all these hunters need your consultation on how to better do what they've been doing their whole lives? I dunno...

Well lot's of deer poachers use .22 longs. Some even use bows and arrows. My point is that deer hunting is hardly justification for a Bushmaster with a 30 round clip.

And I know you really like the "scary" angle, but it has no merit. My classification is auto loading plus detachable magazine. Looks have nothing to do with it. It's another red herring.

[homersapien 11,428]

I dont think the media has an agenda to turn me into an anti gun crusader. They certainly didnt sensationalize the situation. They reported what happened. And it did happen. I dont think the laws that will be proposed, will affect very many people at all percentage wise. But so many people who will not even be affected at all are the ones i hear preaching about the 2nd amendment the most. That is who has the agenda. That is why i asked the question earlier, who of you against new regs even owns a high capacity assault rifle.

I'll stipulate both sides have an agenda. One side realizes bad things happen and the best one can hope for is that those things don't happen to you or your loved ones. But that if and when it does someone is there who is prepared to stop it with limited damage. The other believes the elimination of a style of weapon can limit the scope of these events and that a new set of laws can change the human heart. One side would abridge the freedoms of others because they can't see the purpose of someone having a certain weapon. The other doesn't care whether someone exercises their rights or not. But they want that option available to them. Not much common ground between the two sides as I see it. But I have made clear my opinion as to which side is correct. Especially since we have tried the remedy of the opposing side for 10 years during which the archetype for these mass shootings occurred. That being the columbine attack in which 2 9 mm semiautos and 2 shotguns one pump the other an overunder were used. All of which weren't illegal under the old assault weapons ban or under the new Feinstein proposal.

How do you feel about my freedom to own a RPG being abridged?

[homersapien 11,428]

You are either not reading or have an incredibly limited ability to absorb what you are reading. Just curious, how old are you?

I'm sorry. I had a hard time weeding through your truckload of childish "gotchas" and silliness while I was trying to take part in a mature discussion. You are really not one to mock someones ability (or lack thereof) to absorb what they're reading. You have made it a point several times in this thread to dodge honest presentations and reply with trite quips and poorly veiled insults. Your refusal to acknowledge anyone's points reminds me of a game I play with my children where they go nuts telling me where my glasses are while I pretend to be unaware that they still are on top of my head.

I honestly cannot see wasting any more time on your nonsense.

Good. You have my permission to ignore my posts.

Sorry if I offended you, but it seems like a lot of people who respond to my posts don't actually read them carefully or in their entirety.

It's quite possible that I was ambiguous or obtuse, but some responses clearly indicate they apparently didn't read what I wrote. It's very annoying to have to go back, point it out and repeat it, again, again and again.

I know that ADD runs rampant in the younger generation - undoubtedly exacerbated by multitasking and tweeting - which is why I asked how old you were.

Regardless, if you really have trouble understanding what I wrote, ask about it and I will try to clarify. But if you are going to respond without reading - or understanding - it, then good riddance.